Asking for a cite isn’t to “roundly dismiss”. If GQ is elitist in not encouraging people to contribute what they know when they don’t really know much about the subject at hand, then good.
The problem is that smiling bandit didn’t know anything other than a credulous citation from a friend, and when confronted with both the lack of substance and manifest unlikeyhood of the claim responded with umbrage rather than honest reflection or providing a more concrete source. I don’t think demanding a more thoughtful or factually-supported response to an unfounded and astonishing claim is elitiest, unless if by elite you mean intelligent and honest enough to admit to a mistake.
That being said, I think the o.p. might be blowing things a bit out of proportion in regard to the issue of progressive degredation of standards in GQ. I haven’t been here nearly as long as Qadgop the Mercotan, so perhaps this atavism began before my tenure, but it’s been my experience that most GQ threads are about 10% factual information and authoritative discussion, 25% informed speculation, and the remaining majority semi-ignorant rationalization, spurious bullshit, “my buddy from Cleveland once told me that…”, and wisecracks. The poster in question is one of a select group of village idiots from which I know not to expect any qualified or astute response and generally ignore completely (to the point of adding them to my “Ignore List”) and thereby have a much more pleasent experience here.
And for what it’s worth, I always appreciate Qadgop the Mercotan’s input on GQ threads, especially on topics related to medicine, physiology, et cetera. He’s a smart feller, and I bet he could even get into medical school if he tried. 
Stranger
Indeed, I think that cites are absolutely the best thing about the SDMB, for a variety of reasons. They can, of course, be a way of saying “no really, pull the other one, it’s got bells on”, but I think that far more often they are a way to say “really? I didn’t know that”, and expand the general knowledge base. For me at least (as was the case with this very thread, as I’m always interested in human/ primate evolution), cites are frequently a jumping-off point to do more research/ looking on my own. I’m all in favor of, if not actually more seriousness in GQ (I do love a good joke or pun, as long as it’s well-marked), at least higher standards for information.
I don’t post a lot in GQ–mostly because there’s usually somebody who knows more than I do on the few subjects I know anything about at all–but I lurk there a lot, and I appreciate Qadgop and the other people who really know what they’re talking about.
I haven’t read the original thread since the comment is a general one.
Maybe if **Smiling_Bandit’**s friend had his doctorate in evolutionary science or was otherwise an expert in the field, SB could use him as a reference as could others who have friends with special knowledge in certain fields. But when the claims are “extraordinary,” I would think that one would want to back them up with additional cites or not bother to post at all.
I believe that once or twice over the years, I have posted information that I described as “as a comment from someone whose opinion I value” or something similar. I believe I have made it clear that it was an opinion. And sometimes I will suggest a “possible answer.”
Are these responses undesirable?
It would have done so anyway, without smiling bandit’s “contribution”. John Mace, Darwin’s Finch, Stranger (and at some point possibly Colibri) would have been along anyway with useful information, and they wouldn’t have had to waste time responding to bullshit.
And while it was your question, and I’m glad that you got what you perceive as a satisfactory response, I disagree that a GQ thread that only gets a few replies is something to be lamented. A GQ only needs one reply, if it’s accurate and thorough and well-sourced. If one wants rambling and stimulating conversation, there are other forums for the purpose.
Which leads to our next complaint . . .
Hear hear. There are threads on the front page right now asking, “If we had more atomic power plants would we import less oil?” and “If I want to employ Americans, should I buy a Japanese car?” These aren’t questions with factual answers. I really wish the mods would be more aggressive in moving these. Their presence encourages people to treat GQ as just another “Post whatever you think” gab-fest.
I don’t know, I posted in that thread a few times, if you read through it the answers are largely factual based, errors are being corrected and the discussion is much more polite that any that would occur in GD and more informative than what would end up being in IMHO. GQ appears to be a good place for that thread. Though honestly, I never noticed it was in GQ until you pointed it out, so I also see your point.
Jim
This happens in a lot of language threads. People post wild speculations as fact, and actual linguists (i.e., people who study language for a living) get ignored.
Surely you know by now, Qadgop, that the battle against ignorance can never be “won.” There are just too many would-be combatants–both the old and those just coming up.
I haven’t read the offending thread nor have I read much of this one; basically, I just wanted to encourage you not to lose heart. You are easily one of the most effective ignorance-fighters on this board and we’d all lose if you were to become discouraged.
Many regards,
SA
Thanks, Doc!
One of the reasons I like the Dope is reading threads in GQ, and having various experts provide answers. I like the higher level of discussion on these matters and more often than not stupid jokes and wild speculation detracts more than adds.
QtM was right in complaining in the original thread and Bandit should have shut up or put up.
Great that **QtM **hasn’t been driven out of GQ - I’m more of a lurker than a poster there, but I do appreciate efforts for a higher fact-to-bullshit ratio.
However, as a spectator (usually), I don’t mind the jokes and diversions, it’s only the anecdotes and misinformation that rankle. So, in that spirit, Qadgop, for the bad yam pun, kudos.
For every example of unsupported speculation or anecdote in GQ, there’s another example of fuckwitted pedantry - so it’s not just the fluffy chatters that are the problem, it’s the sticklers for precision too. I mean, how often do we have to do the whole tiresome dictionary definition thing, potentially missing the whole point and intent of the question (like that entirely unnecessary bullshit about the definition of ‘flying’ in this thread)
This message board is a place of discussion - although it’s often unhelpful and distracting to have people blurting out random factoids, there are other times when someone’s half-remembered magazine article (or whatever) will provide the necessary springboard for someone else’s successful search for the hard, useful facts.
If we’re about fighting ignorance here, surely that also includes graciously correcting the misconceptions of people discussing a topic in its own thread - not just shutting those misconceptions out.
I think that unless you actually have some understanding yourself and are not just relaying information that you don’t understand, then yes. But note that what got **SB **Pitted was not the original post, but an unwillingness to let it go when called on it.
I actually USE the GQ forum to find out things and occasionally base decisions on what I’ve learned. As far as anyone being “elitist,” that’s what I want. If it’s a medical question I want one of those elitist doctors answering and if it happens to be electronics or computing I want one of those elitist EE or CS guys answering.
Jokes don’t bother me. Speculative answers on some questions are also fine as long as someone labels it as speculation and doesn’t mind being challenged.
Maybe it’s time (as someone up-thread mentioned) to raise the bar on what can go into GQ.
Regards
Testy
Well, I guess I’ll buck the trend and say I have no problem with type of post. We see where the poster got the info, and should realize that it has a higher potential for being wrong than other better cited posts. I’d rather see more posts with more information (that can be properly judged for accuracy) than to miss some info because someone is afraid to post something because they can find no other cite besides remembering something from conversation or perhaps not remembering where something was read.
The thing is, there’s a time and a place for unsupported speculation–when somebody asks a difficult question about an obscure topic, and when it languishes for a few hours without an answer.
Under those circumstances, speculation can stimulate discussion, or at least bump a thread so that the experts have another crack at it.
Questions about human evolution which have been active for 18 minutes don’t fall into that category. Uninformed speculation is more likely to derail such a thread than to make a contribution.
By and large GQ is a pooling of ignorance with some excellent and accurate replies here and there. There is no SDMB screen to prevent the unenlightened’s verbal diarrhea from getting mixed in with the diamonds of substantive responses.
smiling bandit’s infraction, it seems to me (and, I think, the source of QtM’s irritation) was defending a weak post instead of tightening his sphincter and preventing any further contamination. The irritation is not so much the original squirt of incontinence as it is the unnecessary additions to the stool mass which must now be waded through to find the diamonds.
Most of us hope to come across as significant contributors, and few of us–certainly not I–can resist the occasional foray into a topic beyond our ken in the hope of adding some tiny measure of significance to our otherwise wretched and desperate lives. I don’t think SDMB will be able to effectively prevent that, but promoting a culture of enthusiastic responses along with when to sit down and shut up will help get to the right mix of posts.
Apparently, some people never learn.
I have no objection to speculation in GQ (and have added my own speculation to the thread in question), as long as it is clearly identified as such and is germane to the discussion. In my own case, I do so for topics such as this, where the answer is not cut and dried and there is some debate, in the hope that someone more knowledgeable on the topic will confirm/refute/expand on the speculative idea with additional data that might clarify the issue, rather than as an attempt to truly answer the question.